Replies

The cost of landfill is not usually considered at full market value when comparing recycling costs because it can be passed on to somebody else, usually a future generation as was done with Love Canal.

Likewise, the cost of extracting new materials is not factored into the equation. For example, the cost of depleting the iron ranges in northeast Minnesota has produced generations of poverty and depopulation.

Within reason, recycling has benefits beyond immediate economics. Giving those on the bottom of the economic rung a chance to work rather than claim a handout is one of those benefits.

The aluminum industry has been very responsible and successful about promoting recycling. The glass industry, on the other hand, has been a case study in irresponsibility refusing to do such simple things as standardize colors. Do we really need 128 shades of green for wine bottles, f'rinstance?

Another cost not recognized by the throwaway mentality is social costs. Again, I'll pick on the glass industry. When someone throws a beer bottle on the parking lot and damages a tire (or someone's bare foot), the cost of not recycling is imposed on a third party which gained no benefit from the transaction.

Therefore, I can support bottle deposit laws much easier than I can those on aluminum cans (the consequenses of stepping on cannot even compare to glass).

You are making a circular argument here. You are claiming a knowledge beyond the market that does not exist, and your example is false. Love Canal did not impose costs on future generations because of lack of recycling. Costs to future generations were caused by greedy politicians who used political power to override the concerns of the company who disposed of the waste in a safe and accepted manner. The only way to judge the costs is by the market, as costs are subjective and change radically over time as new technologies are developed.

You are wrong again. I grew up in the area, and the iron mines produced generations of stable, well paying jobs. If they had not existed, the jobs would not have existed. If the demand for iron would have been lower, there would not have been as many jobs. A great deal of iron is recycled already, where it makes sense to do so. We are not running out of resources, as evidenced by the fall of the price of materials in constant dollars.

If we have learned anything in the last 85 years, it is that the market should be relyed on to set prices and determine efficiencies. Trying to rely on central planning and wishful thinking results in massive poverty and death, as has happened in those socialsist countries that have insisted on this approach. The more central planning, the more poverty. Mandated recycling without regard for the market is just central planning in a microcosm.